Re: successfully echelonised
jesse hirsh <email@example.com>
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
[: hacktivism :]
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, sam =-= wrote:
> hi jesse and others,
> i think i've got the word 'regulation' confused. for me, regulation = a
> code of practice, a set of rules on how to behave, or specifically for the
> net - what content can be communicated using it.
no. specifically for the net it is the protocols and standards that make
the net possible. this is everything from isoc.org to ietf.org and att.com
to uu.net. this is the regulation that does and will continue to influence
both the content, and its presentation. i say this as both a distributor
and producer of 'online internet content'. the net is very regulated, and
it is difficult 'getting the word out', let alone getting a word.
> the isp is the gate way to the internet for most of us who don't have the
> priviledge to own our own infrastructure. can't the isp control what gets
> accessed and what doesn't? can't the isp control which domains you can send
> emails to and which you can't? isn't this regulation (control) ?
no, the isp can't really do that. theoretically it could, but practically
it can't. that is not the regulation of issue, nor of importance or
control. control is in infrastructure (property), and control is in
culture (social governance). both are heavily regulated. speaking as
someone who has been involved, and helped others get involved, into the
operation of internet service provider companies, the largest cost in said
ventures, outside of the glorious labour, is that of the telecom bill,
i.e. what you pay to the local monopoly and the upstream provider. then
there's the banks, who via credit, regulate just about anything they can.
> maybe we need to get our dictionaries aligned - or maybe its just mine that
> is out of alignment. the laws coming in to australia on 1st jan are
> described as net regulations' (the full title is Broadcast Services
> Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999). i don't think its about democratic
> governance. but then again, perhaps i am missing something important.
no, its not about democratic governance, nor is it about regulation. the
australian government is making a fool of itself, kind of like a global
guine pig to teach the other nation-states a lesson. their dictionary is
not out of alignment, its experiencing a crisis of faith.
> for me, the newspapers and the televsion mediums (in .au) are highly
> regulated. that is not everyone can publish content on them - and what
> content gets published is filtered throughe editors and proprietors of
> those mediums. my posting expressed a concern about this same type of
> 'regulation' happening to the net.
my point is just that. regulation of the net *exists*. it is hard to
publish on it, it is hard to be heard, let alone be coherent. it is easy
to speak to small groups of likeness, but it is hard to mobilize for
political change, to speak to large and diverse constituencies. there are
many barriers, and there are many gatekeepers.
> in terms of echelon - it is concerned now more and more with providing its
> partners with an economic advantage.
> my comments about echelon hating
> encrpytion were made because if you want to cause echelon's operators
> problems - then use encrpytion.
and my point is that using encryption will not give echelon's operators
> ofcourse it will flag the content - but how
> different is this from flagging content using keywords??
the issue is ont the flaggin of content (which is a byproduct) but rather
of legitimization through acknowledgement. echelon is there, we do not as
yet have the means to counter or work invisibly from inside of it, while
it is quite easy to eascape or work outside of it. i see no reason to
bring attention to echelon, instead of bringing attention to the power
structures that enable echelong to exist/persist.
> wasn't this the
> idea with echelon jam day?
i'm not sure what the idea with echelon jam day is, i kind of think its a
farce or a ruse. i don't think it is what it says it is, nor will it
accomplish what it says it will accomplish, but it will bring attention to
echelon, devoid of its political context, and thereby establish echelon as
a recognized mechanism of authority.
> leave it at that - sam.
i dunno bout that
[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]